Text Size

President Barack Obama had barely announced that he would nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter when the “news” media declared that she would be confirmed. The American people, however, expect the Senate to do its confirmation duty correctly rather than quickly. By a thorough and fair process that, when he was a senator, Obama argued should be “civil and deliberate,” we must determine whether Sotomayor is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

Qualifications fall into two categories. The first includes experience and character. The administration once suggested that Souter’s replacement should come from other than the U.S. Court of Appeals, on which every current Supreme Court justice has served. Having chosen another federal appellate judge, the administration now emphasizes instead that Sotomayor has more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in a century. This means, of course, that it will take time properly to review and consider the enormous record that accumulates during such extensive judicial service.

Qualifications, however, go beyond such experience. The more important qualification is Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy, or her understanding of the power and role of judges in our system of government. In other words, what kind of judge is she now and what kind of justice will she be? As a senator arguing against one of President George W. Bush’s appeals court nominees, Obama argued that judges must “subordinate their views in order to decide each case on the facts and merits alone.”

But as a presidential candidate, he pledged to pick judges who have empathy toward certain groups and, as president, said that a judge’s personal empathy is an “essential ingredient” in arriving at just decisions. Does Sotomayor subscribe to one of these very different judicial philosophies?

Sotomayor has written articles and given speeches that suggest a very expansive view of judicial power. She has, for example, endorsed a judiciary that is “constantly overhauling the law” and has questioned whether judges should even attempt to transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices in deciding cases. She and others have emphasized the need for judges to understand and appreciate the impact of their decisions on people’s lives.

Readers' Comments (7)

Not much if anything to quarrel with here. The idea that cases are decided simply by an application of the law to the facts is not correct. Legislatures make law in response to a perceived problem. Our interactions are far more complex and most often the rule does not neatly fit the facts of the dispute. There are gaps. Judges fill in these gaps in deciding cases. That's what Sotomayer has referred to as did Benjamin Cardozo before her.

No doubt many in the Hispanic community are celebrating the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the vaulted position of SCOTUS justice. I am one Hispanic that is not celebrating.

How does Obama justify his nominee’s racist statement that Hispanic women make better judges than white men? With typical political speak he says, "I'm sure she would have restated it”. Well I am sure she would have, now knowing the backlash that followed.

Then you have Obama’s Press Secretary making his spin: “She was simply making the point that personal experiences are relevant to the process of judging, that your personal experiences . . .have a tendency to make you more aware of certain facts in certain cases, that your experiences impact your understanding.” So, does this means Sotomayor will legislate from the bench according to her personal prejudices? YOU BET SHE WILL.

It’s a sad day for America and for the Hispanic community that truly loves this country. For those of the “La Raza” and Azatlan ilk, they will celebrate with gusto.

No doubt many in the Hispanic community are celebrating the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the vaulted position of SCOTUS justice. I am one Hispanic that is not celebrating.

How does Obama justify his nominee’s racist statement that Hispanic women make better judges than white men? With typical political speak he says, "I'm sure she would have restated it”. Well I am sure she would have, now knowing the backlash that followed.

Then you have Obama’s Press Secretary making his spin: “She was simply making the point that personal experiences are relevant to the process of judging, that your personal experiences . . .have a tendency to make you more aware of certain facts in certain cases, that your experiences impact your understanding.” So, does this means Sotomayor will legislate from the bench according to her personal prejudices? YOU BET SHE WILL.

It’s a sad day for America and for the Hispanic community that truly loves this country. For those of the “La Raza” and Azatlan ilk, they will celebrate with gusto.

Of course Obama wants Sotomayer confirmed quickly. He pushes everything he wants to implement to be done quickly so the American people won't notice how he is destroying this country and so that the Republicans can't encourage dissent among the American people. His policies are unconstitutional, unethical, and Chicago politics in the White House. He is enslaving us and our children to satisfy his perverted image of what he wants this Country to be, socialist. He wants to steal from the rich and give to the poor, setting up no incentive to work anymore. We all should just go on welfare and food stamps and let Obama try to figure out to pay for us doing nothing. I hate this incompetent, lying, sack of $^$&^(*%!